|
nonanone posted:I didn't notice the ear shadow til you said something about it, now I can't stop staring at it. The colors are very nice though. nonanone posted:Here were some makeup tests (not thrilled with the mua): -- Two very different photos of the same subject:  
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Haha yea. I like the shallow dof it creates (0 aperture after all) as well as the fact that you can make pseudo tilt shift effects too. That is totally awesome, I am so trying that tonight. Edit: Holy gently caress that is hard. How do you focus? Just move back and forth until you get something good? Every time I tried to manually focus the lens I just made things worse. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Sep 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
holy poo poo one of the photographers I assist let me sit in on meetings with model agencies today. it's like a goddamn candy store of fantastic models and you don't have to put up with MM poo poo. When I say you I don't mean us mortals however  Hopefully I can start testing with the lesser agencies soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
Ric posted: the guy on the left is cheatingThe shine on the table and the bald guys head is a bit annoying. Experimenting by moving the light source around (if that was an option) could probably have helped. I would probably mask out the highlight on the back of their necks, and more importantly the floor (my eyes went straight there). The earlier photo could use a crop for the same reason in addition to the fact that no one cares about the chicks crocs. I do like the subject matter and it definitely makes for an interesting series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Haha yea. I like the shallow dof it creates (0 aperture after all) as well as the fact that you can make pseudo tilt shift effects too. That's just what your camera is reporting because it can't talk with the lens, the aperture is still the same. The apparently shallow DoF is from shifting the focal plane (pseudo tilt shift effect) you mention. That's real tilt/shift btw, you just aren't doing it systematically like you would with a dedicated T/S lens or a view camera. Nice portrait by the way!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I've never worked with a MUA, what makes them Good/bad, and what do you look for? Well, first of all, there's the obvious skill-level. Are they able to fix any skin problems, draw attention away from problem areas, do they have a good grasp of different color palettes (especially important to me, are they good with other skin ethnicities other than white) The less obvious stuff is sometimes more important: how long do they take, do they take direction well, are they creative? If I ask them to push it, are they going to go for it, or stay safe? In this case, she was pretty unresponsive, I had to do a fair amount of skin cleanup and the lip color wasn't good. She was also pretty slow, and had no idea how to do makeup on a guy or anything creative at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 05:53
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Well, first of all, there's the obvious skill-level. Are they able to fix any skin problems, draw attention away from problem areas, do they have a good grasp of different color palettes (especially important to me, are they good with other skin ethnicities other than white) Hmm, How did you go about learning Make-up stuff? I've thought about it, at least learning the basics but I have no idea where to start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
I've kind of toyed with the idea of taking make up lessons so I can at least do basic stuff during shoots. That would save a ton of work in post for casual shoots with no makeup artist. All I can say about good MUAs is that they're totally worth the money if the budget is available. HPL fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
On a shoot I once asked a makeup artist to sort of explain what she was doing as she was doing it. It's incredibly complex and skilled work and they do it fast an accurately too. I was really impressed with it and gained a new respect for makeup artists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
I'm thinking really simple stuff like taking care of shiny skin or noticeable blemishes so I don't have to spend ages dealing with unwanted highlights etc etc. Or at least learning enough about makeup that I can effectively communicate with the MUA as opposed to speaking in vague generalities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm thinking really simple stuff like taking care of shiny skin or noticeable blemishes so I don't have to spend ages dealing with unwanted highlights etc etc. I think a good place to start would just be asking the next MUA you work with. It's especially tricky as a guy I think to pick it up now as we don't have a lifetime of practice with not poking eyes out with mascara brushes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:The earlier photo could use a crop for the same reason in addition to the fact that no one cares about the chicks crocs. I do like the subject matter and it definitely makes for an interesting series. The second photo was one I took while packing down. I could have moved the light but decided it wasn't worth it for a quick shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 19:16
|
|
|
Ric posted:I agree that cropping a strip from bottom and top of the frame would focus attention more strongly, I haven't simply because I prefer to keep the aspect ratio in which it was taken. You were packing down and couldnt be bothered to move a light (that you were about to remove)?. I smell sausages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:You were packing down and couldnt be bothered to move a light (that you were about to remove)?. I smell sausages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
My wife watches make up tutorials on youtube from time to time. The techniques allow for all kinds of shaping of a face. You can narrow the eyes, widen them, make them bigger, make noses smaller, ect. It's really crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm a girl, so while I'm not super into make up, I have some experience with it. I think the best way is just to look up the basics (easily found online) or even just practice on your own face. HPL, what you want is to get some concealer and some foundation. The trick is to match the skin color, don't apply too heavily (concealer is for blemishes, foundation is for shine). But yeah, easy to look all this stuff up and just try it out  another option is just asking the model to do the basic makeup, most girls know how to.But yeah, a good mua is worth their weight in gold, and they'll know how to work with you when you say something like "ummm yeah can it be kinda more mysterious-like" or something vaguely creative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
nonanone posted:HPL, what you want is to get some concealer and some foundation. The trick is to match the skin color, don't apply too heavily (concealer is for blemishes, foundation is for shine). But yeah, easy to look all this stuff up and just try it out I'm not worried about girls, it's if I'm doing a band promo shoot or something and I don't want guys faces shining like light bulbs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm not worried about girls, it's if I'm doing a band promo shoot or something and I don't want guys faces shining like light bulbs. I'm trying to think of a really quick way without buying a lot of makeup, but I'm not sure it's possible if the people you're taking photos of are different skin colours (unless you want to do shoots in black and white). But I would suggest mineral (powered) makeup and a big fat face makeup brush. But it's really easy to apply (unlike cream foundation) and it's really good at getting rid of shine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 10:57
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm not worried about girls, it's if I'm doing a band promo shoot or something and I don't want guys faces shining like light bulbs. Or you can learn about specularity and how to get rid of it using light size and placement. You can keep a mirror from having specular highlights with enough knowledge. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2009/06/light.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 13:26
|
|
|
I took my Bessa and Nokton to a Tea Party rally as a form of local safari. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 09:37
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I took my Bessa and Nokton to a Tea Party rally as a form of local safari. Despite my aversion to the subject matter, I like the portraits. Can't really explain further, they just seem nice to look at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 10:21
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Musician portrait thingy. It's a bit cliche, but I think we ended up with something nice. Only thing I don't like is that little shadow created by her ear. I should have pulled that light around. Great portrait but I have to agree with you about the ear. nonanone posted:Really digging this. Reichstag posted:I took my Bessa and Nokton to a Tea Party rally as a form of local safari. This looks like it's from the 50s. Very nice.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
Photo illustration for a story on 3D movies
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2009/06/light.html I remember reading that page a year ago, but did not realize it was yours. Awesome writeup !
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
My first try at ocf/portraiture. Wish I had gotten a better expression- would love any suggestions.  Grant by damnlamb, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I took my Bessa and Nokton to a Tea Party rally as a form of local safari. Whoa, nice! dakana posted:Photo illustration for a story on 3D movies It's a well-executed portrait but I can only see the hairy forearm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:My first try at ocf/portraiture. Wish I had gotten a better expression- would love any suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Judging by the sky it seems like you took the recovery slider to 100% which generally results in an ugly sky and a picture with no contrast in lighter areas. I like the dark city scape as a background, and it has a perfect amount of focus, though I wouldn't mind if you cloned out the small lights on the white apartment building. The subject is well posed and the expression is fine, but I feel the overall contrast (mainly in his face) lacks contrast and seems flat which should be easy to fix in post (a small increase should be fine). The movement in his hand is a little too subtle and given the expression I think I would have preferred that it hadn't moved at all. This is also a good shot to experiment with cropping. The crop you have is nice, but there is a fair amount of dead space to the left and above the subject. See how far you can push it saving different versions along the way and then compare to see which you like best. It's a very nice shot and that Guitar is incredibly gorgeous. Thanks! That is incredibly helpful. We had about six minutes to shoot before the skies opened up- in the original shot the sky is completely flat/blown out, and so I did my best (with incredibly limited pp skills) try and bring it back to something a bit more interesting. I will take another stab at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:That first picture is unfeasibly cute. Not only that, but you've brought some interest and character out in a child portrait, which so many people never, ever, ever do, because all they need is one fairly well exposed snap on their kid and 99% of parents will be happy with it. You've actually bothered to go further than that and make it interesting to people who aren't the child's parents. Post is lovely, too - is there a spot of yellow split toning going on? Studebaker Hawk posted:My first try at ocf/portraiture. Wish I had gotten a better expression- would love any suggestions. If you converted to black and white, I'm not sure how much no sky detail would matter. It might look good, although you'd need to go ahead and try it first. Then you can work on making the face and immediate background less flat. Definitely give it another go over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I really love these, and I thought they were yours beforeI saw your name. I think the 2nd one is the best, and the dark greens really frame the child. The 3rd one is just adorable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:this would be an excellent triptych to hang in a home if the last picture was vertical as well. They're really good mono photos.  portrait of my friend. Forgot my umbrella so my flash was bare. It was about ten feet to my right, about eight feet up, angled downward. I decided to use it because there was cloud cover and no really good midday sunlight to use, and I wanted isolation as opposed to even lighting. I helped this along with some dodging/burning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
Penpal posted:portrait of my friend. Forgot my umbrella so my flash was bare. It was about ten feet to my right, about eight feet up, angled downward. I decided to use it because there was cloud cover and no really good midday sunlight to use, and I wanted isolation as opposed to even lighting. I helped this along with some dodging/burning. I like it. It's just oozing fun personality. I love the use of shallow depth of field to isolate the subject. That's really important with busy backgrounds like forest. You've done a good job of bringing enough color into the photo to give it richness without veering off into oversaturation. I like the way the lit branches up top funnel down to his head. It gives the photo some direction. If I could pick one nit, it would be that I would have liked to see more rim lighting around the shoulders but I understand that would have been difficult if not impossible given the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
I actually did a lot of dodging around the (camera) right of his head, and his shoulders, to insert a ~~~fake~~~ contour highlight. It didn't do much, especially around his shoulders but it was a ton darker. I also dodged the highlights of the gown, and burned the shadows. When I was doing this, I didn't just slather the dodge/burn on... I really went and kind of painted shadow definition in there. I wanted it to look really smooth, like a black car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
He looks like he just graduated from Hogwarts
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
In an ideal world, I would have also: Used a more open lens.. the bokeh that the trees make isn't the best, so the quicker it blurs out, the better. Wireless flash behind him. This would give you some wicked rim lighting. Other than that, I really like it
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
It was shot at 1.8 dude! And I don't know about using a rim light. I usually use only one strobe for portraits like this in a natural setting with natural light, because then it seems too artificial if you know what I mean. I haven't come across many photographers who can keep a natural looking photo while still using 2+ strobes. I have another portrait that I'll be posting in an hour, or tomorrow morning and thanks for liking it dude!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
I am a bit curious about your methods of either clarity or noise correction. It's a phenomenal portrait, great depth of field with perfect lighting. My only complaint was going to be the sharp circles of confusion which tend to be an artifact of too much clarity slider, but when viewed at 100% there is something funky going on. His face almost looks painted and there is a odd texture to everything. Not that it's a bad thing, it actually is kind of neat, I'm just really really curious as I've never encountered it before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
Penpal posted:It was shot at 1.8 dude! And I don't know about using a rim light. I usually use only one strobe for portraits like this in a natural setting with natural light, because then it seems too artificial if you know what I mean. I haven't come across many photographers who can keep a natural looking photo while still using 2+ strobes. I have another portrait that I'll be posting in an hour, or tomorrow morning Every single day you see people lit from more than one direction. You are thinking of the latest trend to boost rim lights to 11 and keep them at extreme angles. You must not study much photography if you haven't seen people making natural looking photos with 2+ flashes. Make your 2nd source as soft as possible and keep the ratio to the main way down and you can get separation without it screaming for attention. Not saying this photo needs it, just commenting on the "only 1 light looks good" post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 11:49
|
|
|
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I read your lighting blog a bunch, too! I usually click on it every couple of days but you don't update very often. I think one of the reasons why I feel that way is because I'm very saturated with photographers my age who are doing the "million strobes" thing to make a photo more dynamic, when you can achieve dynamism other ways. I'm thinking of band photos, portraits, that sort of thing... sometimes with HDR or high-pass cranked way up. With rim lights so hot it's like there are three suns pointed at the person, whether or not they're in a car park, in a forest, or any other setting. I didn't really say that "only one light looks good", but I should clarify my ignorant opinion a bit: I haven't seen many photos that use more than one flash in a forest setting while maintaining a naturalistic look. Not that there aren't any good ones, I just haven't seen many. Any links and lighting tutorials would be awesome. I have to say that Joey L's portraits of indigenous peoples were not really my style. I recognize that the lighting was good, but I just didn't prefer it. And LastMan: I sharpened it quite a bit in LR because I think I did miss the focus by a hair. You can see the moss in front of him just slightly is sharp as hell, but it very narrowly drops off. I didn't bump the clarity TOO much, LR says it's +15. I also didn't high pass it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
I am about to shoot a catwalk fashion show type thing. No idea what to expect. Bring the 24-70 and the 70-200 and pray for the best? 100mm Macro too in case the 24-70 isn't long enough? Never done any of it before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 01:49
|
|
